03/03/2026
A client recently called me about an attendance problem.
An employee’s reliability had declined. Frequent absences. Late arrivals. Performance slipping. When the employee did attend, there were signs of substance abuse. Leadership was frustrated and ready to move to discipline.
Before we formalized discipline, we talked about the duty to inquire.
In British Columbia, when there are indicators that protected characteristics (e.g., physical disability, mental disability - including addiction) may be affecting performance, an employer has a legal obligation to pause and ask appropriate, respectful questions before moving to discipline.
So, before writing a warning letter, we scheduled a private meeting.
No accusations. No diagnosing. Just this:
“I’ve noticed some changes in your attendance. When you do attend, you sometimes seem out-of-it, and I thought I smelled alcohol on you this morning. Is there anything going on that we should be aware of or to support you with?”
A long quiet pause. The employee disclosed they were struggling with alcoholism. They hadn’t asked for help because they were afraid of losing their job.
Because the employer handled it privately and calmly, the employee agreed to seek treatment. A short-term accommodation was put in place.
When the employee returned to work, expectations were clarified with a formal letter. Attendance improved. More crucially, the relationship improved and a sense of loyalty increased.
This is the part leaders often miss: the duty to inquire isn’t just about legal risk mitigation. It’s about creating a workplace where people can disclose issues before they spiral into termination.
Sometimes the right move isn’t discipline. The right move is to remain approachable, act with integrity, and intervene on concerns with a well-timed, well-phrased question.
